Evolution is an exercise in creative thinking.

I was merely remarking upon an ignorance of writing "there" instead of "their".
I don't care much about the frackin' grammar here either, but typing "there" instead of "their" is totally stupid and I don't see any bloody reason
why one should write it that way, it's not even shorter.
5 letters in both while the meaning is completely different and maybe foreign readers may even get confused?!

Anyways, I didn't mean to offend you.
It would be great if you two would start distinguishing those words though.

Cheers

edit://
My paragraphs may seem odd, but that's maybe because I often use my iPhone to reply and using a phone is not as pleasurable as using a Mac or a
Windows to see the text clearly, edit paragraphs and care about the aesthetics all over.

Well, if we measure the evolution of mankind by life span, then yes.
But what makes you think that the longer life expectancy is better? I mean, yeah, clearly... it sounds great and looks great at the first glance, but
really, if we go deeper into this, it's not really that great, is it?
Look at the the problems elderly people have to face? We were not meant to live this long, we were not designed to live this long. What is being done
here, is a mere crucial prolonging of the torture of the men.

Because yet again, the longer you live, the longer you pay.
Now I don't mean only drugs and the medicine stuff, I mean taxes, debts, and so on... and so forth.

There is almost always a dark side of every 'greater good' you see at the first glance. Look.

I know the difference between there, their, and they're. I always try to use the correct version (it's not hard to remember which). But this is the
internet, it is a common mistake made by many people and in the end you just look like a grammar nazi when you correct others. I stopped caring how
people use there, their, and they're a LONG time ago. I just stay in my lane and make sure that MY grammar is correct. Given all the silly grammar
rules in English writing, that is hard enough as it is, let alone trying to correct someone else's grammar.

Well, if we measure the evolution of mankind by life span, then yes.
But what makes you think that the longer life expectancy is better? I mean, yeah, clearly... it sounds great and looks great at the first glance, but
really, if we go deeper into this, it's not really that great, is it?
Look at the the problems elderly people have to face? We were not meant to live this long, we were not designed to live this long. What is being done
here, is a mere crucial prolonging of the torture of the men.

I agree with this. We are living longer than ever and especially longer than humans were meant to. People growing ancient and feeble is a result of
living longer with better medical care. It's just a fact and the way things are. Naturally this arises problems when people start to live TOO long.
But that is another problem that medical science is currently trying to address: delaying, slowing down, or outright halting the aging process.

Because yet again, the longer you live, the longer you pay.
Now I don't mean only drugs and the medicine stuff, I mean taxes, debts, and so on... and so forth.

I guess that is true.

There is almost always a dark side of every 'greater good' you see at the first glance. Look.

Never said there wasn't. Though keep in mind the whole reason we are having this discussion is because someone said that many modern medical
breakthroughs use evolutionary theory to develop these ideas. Regardless of the pros and cons of modern medical science, that statement still holds
true.

I don't know why so many people are coming out recently attacking evolution and trying to prove it wrong. Is this another angle that religionists are
using? Silly people!

If any principle or scientific principle doesn't come across criticism, it's likely doing it wrong. Worse, once its adherents or supporters become
religious in the face of this criticism, we see a failure of scientific inquiry. However, anytime someone comes along and tries to "prove it wrong",
they are in fact refining it.

Questioning how empirical observations can be made millions of years before the human eyes existed is a legitimate criticism. But science has moved to
favour rationalism where empiricism cannot reach in favour of scope and explanatory power.

originally posted by: reploid
3. Misinterpreting fossil evidence...
The fossil of an extinct animal is evidence that such an animal once existed. Nothing more, nothing less. However, evolutionists interpret the fossil
specimens in light of evolution and conclude it is part of a sequence, thereby fitting a presumption. A rough analogy would be like finding an
artefact of an ancient kingdom and insisting that the kingdom came to an end ONLY by foriegn invasion and nothing else, despite the fact that other
possibilities such as natural disaster are just as valid.

Well I think what scientists like to do is they take several different fossils and compare them to each other. Obviously a single fossil
wouldn't be enough to study change taking place over numerous life spans.

Also, you say that a fossil is evidence for nothing else than the animal having existed? I don't understand how you can claim that. Here are some
other things a fossil shows, just off the top of my head:

- Location of the animal at the time of death.
- Minimum time elapsed since death (to allow for fossilization).
- Various properties of the animal such as size, sex, pregnancy, injuries, diet to some extent etc.

This thread is aimed at highlighting the creative thinking evolutionists apply to keep afloat the theory of evolution. If conjecture and leaps
of imagination have no place in legitimate science, then there is no real reason why evolution, also touted as a "legitimate science", should operate
on conjecture and leaps of imagination.

Well, I'd be tempted to start a thread titled
Religion is an Exercise in Creative Thinking

but they'd probably both be trashed.

Imagination and creative thinking are definitely what spurs scientists - and so we arrive at new, fascinating KNOWLEDGE.

Religion, and sticking to it in the face of irrefutable evidence (even refuting that irrefutable evidence) is the MOST "creatively thought" and
"imagined" bunch of ideas that man has ever had.

Recently I read the entire "Complete Hitchhiker's Guide" - in one of the books Adams talks about pocket computers - at the time he wrote those books,
such things did not exist. Now, if you don't have one, well, you're "old skool."

EDIT: And, btw, I don't. Still have a clamshell/flip phone.
I just don't want to spring for a pocket computer...don't have the extra $500 to spend.

originally posted by: ZeroReady
Also, if there's a reason we don't yet fully understand evolution, it's because for hundreds of years Religionists were excommunicating, torturing,
burning, and otherwise silencing anyone who offered a rational scientific explanation of the natural world.

originally posted by: Necrose
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I did not want to look like a nerd

Now you make me look like a geek and a nerd

that's not nice!

I was merely remarking upon an ignorance of writing "there" instead of "their".
I don't care much about the frackin' grammar here either, but typing "there" instead of "their" is totally stupid and I don't see any bloody
reason why one should write it that way, it's not even shorter.
5 letters in both while the meaning is completely different and maybe foreign readers may even get confused?!

Anyways, I didn't mean to offend you.
It would be great if you two would start distinguishing those words though.

Cheers

edit://
My paragraphs may seem odd, but that's maybe because I often use my iPhone to reply and using a phone is not as pleasurable as using a Mac or a
Windows to see the text clearly, edit paragraphs and care about the aesthetics all over.

I'm on my iPhone as well. It's a mistake I commonly make when typing quickly . I don't see it as a very big streach. Espeacially considering, there
both 5 letters and pronounced the same lol.

If evolution threatens your world view so deeply, maybe you should reassess your world view.

It seems creationists are happy to attack concepts they don't agree with, but don't apply the same critical thinking to their own beliefs (double
standard), and as of yet, no-one (on any side of the argument) has proposed a viable alternative to evolution. It is the only collection of concepts
that fits with all the evidence... and creation isn't an alternative. Creation is the equivalent of Narnia... complete make-believe.

If evolution threatens your world view so deeply, maybe you should reassess your world view.

It seems creationists are happy to attack concepts they don't agree with, but don't apply the same critical thinking to their own beliefs (double
standard), and as of yet, no-one (on any side of the argument) has proposed a viable alternative to evolution. It is the only collection of concepts
that fits with all the evidence... and creation isn't an alternative. Creation is the equivalent of Narnia... complete make-believe.

So...

My simple question to you is:

What is your alternative scientific theory to evolution?

I know!!!i know!!!..........God did it! Lmao it's a duex ex machania. It's a one size fits all so technically it does fit, but only because it fits
every scenerio imaginable incising evolution.

>>
the claim that the single cell evolved into much larger and complex life forms
>>

Firstly, I don't think there is ANY doubt that less complex organisms evolved into more complex ones.
I am sorry, all you need to see that is a 3rd grader book on Biology or a keen natural interest in science, nature.

Secondly, creation-ISTS constantly throw the issue into the debate that it's not credible/logical that ALL species evolved from either a single,
primitive organism or only a very few organisms. Eg. species evolving "INTO" other species.

I am of the opinion there is no reason WHY this should have occurred although of course the common understanding is that all species at some point
started out in water, POSSIBLY even from one single type of organism. Who knows.

But in my opinion it's logical to think that when life developed on a planet it developed in several locations simultaneously, independent from each
other. Simplified example: There may be plants or animals in Australia who are very specialized to their very unique environment IN AUSTRALIA, an
environment that may not exist anywhere else. I would also not postulate that those Australian animals evolved from, say, animals in Africa or South
America. They evolved INDEPENDENTLY within and for their particular environment. Life likely started out on Earth on MANY places at the same time.

That life started with one "single seed" organism is an assumption which doesn't make too much sense.

originally posted by: reploid
This thread is aimed at highlighting the creative thinking evolutionists apply to keep afloat the theory of evolution. If conjecture and leaps of
imagination have no place in legitimate science, then there is no real reason why evolution, also touted as a "legitimate science", should operate
on conjecture and leaps of imagination.

1. Imagination used to fill in gaps...
Take for example, the "cambrian explosion". Evolutionists have "patched" the issue by
concocting the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This theory is pretty much a miracle
within the theory of evolution....as it directly contradicts the Darwinian idea that complex lifeforms evolved gradually over millions of years.

2. Guesswork and conjecture...
Questions such as "how did sex evolve" are usually responded to with a "what happened was..." or "it happened because..." type of
explanation. Evolutionists presume it "evolved" and then proceed to conjecture on "why" or "how" it happened, thereby making it pretty much
anybodys guess (as long as its within the framework of the theory)...but not objective science that can be tested or observed

3. Misinterpreting fossil evidence...
The fossil of an extinct animal is evidence that such an animal once existed. Nothing more, nothing less. However, evolutionists interpret the fossil
specimens in light of evolution and conclude it is part of a sequence, thereby fitting a presumption. A rough analogy would be like finding an
artefact of an ancient kingdom and insisting that the kingdom came to an end ONLY by foriegn invasion and nothing else, despite the fact that other
possibilities such as natural disaster are just as valid.

4. Extrapolation...
Evolutionists show instances of genuine evolution on a small scale and then extrapolate it to prove acts of evolution many orders of magnitude greater
than what has been observed... while insisting its the "same thing". Sorry, bacteria evolving into nylon eating bacteria is evidence of evolution on
that small scale. Nothing more, nothing less. To claim the same concept applies to the claim that the single cell evolved into much larger and complex
life forms is a leap of imagination.

There are probably other ways in which evolutionists apply creative thinking and conjecture to present evolution as legitimate science, so hopefully
other members can add to this list.

#32

Some people want there religion to be true so bad they'll believe anything.....not "evolutionists".... I mean the OP. Every point you made is
ridiculous. Obviously your only reading Christian conspiracy sites.

You do realize that about half of modern medicine is from evolution. .... Don't fall for there garbage.

the funny thing is that there is no such thing as modern medicine, the medicine we are seeing today is a god damn boredom killing business making
profit for the BIGpharma and their corporate greed, the pesky doctors prescribing drugs for their own profit and introducing the "new kind of drugs"
or "new methods" via advertising and another marketing strategies gaining profit for another bunch of folks ... damn, the ancient people knew a
helluva more about medicine than we do today.
We don't cure the disease, we conceal and mask the symptoms. We already know that the vast, vast majority of illnesses comes from the mind, yet we
decide to cure the body. Why?... Money.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.